Thursday, February 28, 2008

Mathematics is not the rigid and rigidity-producing schema that the layman thinks it is; rather, in it we find ourselves at that meeting point of constraint and freedom that is the very essence of human nature.

- Hermann Weyl

Perspective has been push back in a reductionistic sense and understanding in a cosmological sense. The limit to which this process could incorporate a relativistic explanation would have been a glorious one indeed?

The Navier-Stokes equations, named after Claude-Louis Navier and George Gabriel Stokes, describe the motion of fluid substances such as liquids and gases. These equations establish that changes in momentum in infinitesimal volumes of fluid are simply the sum of dissipative viscous forces (similar to friction), changes in pressure, gravity, and other forces acting inside the fluid: an application of Newton's second law to fluid.

They are one of the most useful sets of equations because they describe the physics of a large number of phenomena of academic and economic interest. They may be used to model weather, ocean currents, water flow in a pipe, flow around an airfoil (wing), and motion of stars inside a galaxy. As such, these equations in both full and simplified forms, are used in the design of aircraft and cars, the study of blood flow, the design of power stations, the analysis of the effects of pollution, etc. Coupled with Maxwell's equations they can be used to model and study magnetohydrodynamics.

The Navier-Stokes equations are also of great interest in a purely mathematical sense. Somewhat surprisingly, given their wide range of practical uses, mathematicians have yet to prove that in three dimensions solutions always exist (existence), or that if they do exist they do not contain any infinities, singularities or discontinuities (smoothness). These are called the Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness problems. The Clay Mathematics Institute has called this one of the seven most important open problems in mathematics, and offered a $1,000,000 prize for a solution or a counter-example.

So where is that? Where is the "perfect fluid" and what has this to do with the current state of the universe? The "effect of collisions" which produce a Cerenkov effect. Is this a "faster then the speed of light" from such a process being encapsulating in that early universe condition?

As perplexing as this sounds, it sets up the understanding that Super Cosmologists have to think outside the box. If no information is lost, then where did the information come from? There is a topological unfolding here that speak to mathematical designs all the while it integrates the Navier-Stokes equations in terms of it's relativistic explanation, derived from the very moments of that creation?

So as silly as some would have you believe that new models do not have any chance from a mathematical perspective of having lost touch with reality, is the need to explain the process in terms of natural occurrences that are going on around us, which we were not previously aware of.

In levitation post I try to explain how using Susskind's thought experiment we may derive information about the geometrical conditions being developed from "Bob" entering the blackhole on the back of a elephant.

First let me remind you of where you had been taken in terms of your view of the universe. Had you realized that you are now given a micro perspective on the very nature of this universe? That given the circumstance, the elephant takes on a whole new meaning in terms of searching to understand quantum gravity at a level not considered before.

So what does Susskind do? You see the very question about interpreting events in this way, ask that we push our perceptive toward topological inferences of continuity? There are no current geometrics that can be explained from inside the blackhole. Pushing perspective needed a method to help us orientate what is happening at that geometrical level.

Quantum Gravity: A physical theory describing the gravitational interactions of matter and energy in which matter and energy are described by quantum theory. In most, but not all, theories of quantum gravity, gravity is also quantized. Since the contemporary theory of gravity, general relativity, describes gravitation as the curvature of spacetime by matter and energy, a quantization of gravity implies some sort of quantization of spacetime itself. Insofar as all extant physical theories rely on a classical spacetime background, this presents profound methodological and ontological challenges for the philosopher and the physicist.

Unfortunately I lost the link to a introduction of a book below yet showed this, to help one define the context of the work that has to be done.

Quantum gravity is perhaps the most important open problem in fundamental physics. It is the problem of merging quantum mechanics and general relativity, the two great conceptual revolutions in the physics of the twentieth century. The loop and spinfoam approach, presented in this book, is one of the leading research programs in the field. The first part of the book discusses the reformulation of the basis of classical and quantum Hamiltonian physics required by general relativity. The second part covers the basic technical research directions. Appendices include a detailed history of the subject of quantum gravity, hard-to-find mathematical material, and a discussion of some philosophical issues raised by the subject. This fascinating text is ideal for graduate students entering the field, as well as researchers already working in quantum gravity. It will also appeal to philosophers and other scholars interested in the nature of space and time.

Friday, March 23, 2007

It looks as though primes tend to concentrate in certain curves that swoop away to the northwest and southwest, like the curve marked by the blue arrow. (The numbers on that curve are of the form x(x+1) + 41, the famous prime-generating formula discovered by Euler in 1774.). See more info on Mersenne Prime.

I always find it interesting that the ability of the mind to do it's gymnastics, had to have some "background information" with which we could assign "the acrobatics of thinking" to special sequences. Thus create some commonality of exchange.

Might we think the computerized world will give us an "human emotive side of being."

So born from it's "original position" what asymmetry was produced to have the universe have it's special way with which it will deal with it's inhabitants? Any "point source" has a greater potential and from a "perfect symmetry" you had to know where this existed?

Lee Smolin will then lead you away from perfect symmetry and explain why?

So why not think for a minute that if you had "crossed wires" how might you see the world and think, how strange a Synesthesist to have such "emotive reactions instantaneously" bring forth perceived coloured responses. Colours perhaps, as diverse as the Colour of Gravity?

How much of a joke shall I play with peoples minds to think the choice of the observer has consequences? That those consequences are indeed coloured. If this is to much for you, and you say, "oh what a flowery pot I am with such a proposal," then think about "the concept" being used.

The struggle for the emotive language to be explained to the everyday person, as if, the Synesthesist was being simple in their explanation? A "one inch" equation perhaps? They should be so lucky that they could explain themself while they toy with the world and try and make sense of it. That is how different it can be in finding some result of clarification.

That is how foreign I would lead you to believe, that if I wish to communicate, that any language developed, was speaking directly to the source of all expressions, as if they had a geometrical explanation to it. Use of Riemann is understood i this way. It did not divorce him from his teacher, but added vitality tthe way in which we seen Gaussian Arcs and all.

I had to think sometimes that what was common knowledge can sometimes be wrapped in up the language we use. So imagine for a time that you will go out and change the way we see the world and add this particular model of String theory just to confuse the heck out of us all.

Do you want to take the time and consult with the aliens we have on this earth? :) Now surely you know I jest, because of the way in which this model asks a us to look at the world. What use you say?

Please don't confuse this language adaptation to the "ignorance and arrogance" of the "Lincos," a being something other then the human beings who are trying to get a GRIP ON OUR PERSPECTIVES. ASKING US TO SEE IN WAY THAT WE ARE NOT TO ACCUSTOM Too.

This post on the Multiverse of mine, may be an "psychological interpretation" here that I would like to bring forward. This may be distasteful for people of science. Please bear with me as I try to explain myself, and not sanction me to a site that has issues with "ten dimensions and and quantum tunnelling?":)

The Flower as a Universe in Expression

So I will open the above with an example of one of the flowers done up with regards to Mandalic interpretations. This has been part of my research to understand the "individuality of each persons expression" from the inside out. As if, one understood the "liminocentric structure" develop from the schematic of the "circle with a point" in it, "to a point" with a boundary condition that is contained, as an equation of E=mc2.

AS well the student here is learning to give credence to a "way of enlightenment" that foreshadows what can exist as "this schematic mathematical diagram," could find itself looking quite nicely in such a expression as that of a flower.

I think one can be detracted by good pictures as to the originality of how we might see the universe in expression. So "without further explanation" we might say yes indeed they are good pictures of flowers without understanding the inheritance of the explanation forth coming.

So the idea here is not to be judgemental of the "book by it's cover" until one has considered the explanation that is forthcoming. As one weights what the expression of any universe can mean, while within it, there are evidences for the possibilities of what exists as our own universe, was granted a design, as one might grant each galaxy in expression?

Take an event within the colliders and tell how each will react according to the energies used?

I may have been attracted to this one for consideration by implicating the "music of the spheres" in my previous comments so however words are transported back and forth between scientists, or "the insinuation" of JoAnne of Cosmic Variance has for it, I cannot help the way I see.:)

OKay now. On to the explanation, as I have learnt to understand it, and then, what ever fate I have assigned to me and this becomes the way of it for me? Cracked flower pot and all.

Bubble Nucleation

During a first-order phase transition, the matter fields get trapped in a `false vacuum' state from which they can only escape by nucleating bubbles of the new phase, that is, the `true vacuum' state. See here for correlating Post.

Now is it enough that I identify the "source of such expressions" to advance the "geometrical inherent of form" as a universe in expression? So where did this design come from. How could anything issue from such "chaos implied in all the possibilities" that we might have the universe we did in this one?

So by looking at the picture below you get this sense of why the "sombrero as a hat" serves us well to explain the nature of gravitational considerations while this "collapse of the sphere" can produce all kinds of models of geometrical expressions, as a Calabi Yau?

The "landscape" has been something of a issue, as I have travelled through the last couple of years, watching scientists go back and forth in debate. They have their reasons why of course.

I will not assign "a label" although I use them here in this blog "to categorize the times that I have ventured onto a particular subject." I will not succumb to "any categories" that insinuate that "one group of scientists belong to let's say the "Templeton Foundation" and thusly criticize them, as being insignificant and deluded. "Founding a movement" to change society other then, what society wants itself to become.

So by characterization I have learnt to not hold any woman or man to the "fate of character alone," or the "choices they make." But to see the basis of science is continually being adhered to on a level of "correlation of cognition." Given, the experiment and facts, what does one conclude to do while they venture forward? What do they pull toward them, as they theorize about the science?

How is their philosophy imbued them to speak, while there is this underlying mathematical basis to the world? Is it all "flowery or drawn to the arts" that it detracts from the science? Are there not ways that art helps science visualize what has come from their thought processes?

So Tegmark saids,"the universe is not a bagel?" And we have all these ideas about the "shape of the universe." Cosmology likes em large, while the Calabi Yau-ist like it small? Okay, not small, but descriptively unique?

The "quantum harmonic oscillator" and "zero point as a ground state, are the basis of my thinking. :)Energy densities. I needed a way in which to see these events unfolding in the universe. Why I look at WMAPing very seriously. Why I looked at the chaldni plate very early on.

If you look at things in this way I have covered a lot of ground work in terms of what the basis of this universe is? "Nothing," is a extremely hard thing for me to accept when I accept the quantum harmonic oscillator, as the basis of my thinking. I had to be able to describe what I was seeing. So "sound" in analogy became a very important aspect of my research. Became discriptive of what Higgin's the graviton is doing?

String theory is only "topologically equivalent" to the shape and values of those events microscopically/macroscopically at a certain plac einthe unfolding universe? I learnt that the energy densities flunctuations, would give meaning to the place dynamically and geometrically speaking, to the place in time, that is unfolding. What evidence do you have for that if "Higgin's" is strong in some event places and not in others? :)

Of course I thank those who help to push our perspectives forward. Often you and I will shall remain nameless. Isn't it rewarding that what could have been postulated by our "questioning stance," would allow others the chance to dig deep and dwell, about these things? That without you, the progression might not have ever made the light of day?

So it comes together, in some symposiatic toning of our reason?

Yes, we can operate, outside the box, while still fully conscious of what science is saying?:)

The "Butterfly Effect" is the propensity of a system to be sensitive to initial conditions.Such systems over time become unpredictable,this idea gave rise to the notion of a butterfly flapping it's wings in one area of the world,causing a tornado or some such weather event to occur in another remote area of the world.

The problem is when you at least think that a simple time entropically considered, can become increasing complex entropically, we see what lies around us today. But there are some problems when you go to that simplier time and there, you would think this is where chaos rules? Chaos would to me imply "discretism(?)" while continuity and flow of energy, understands the cohesion between all events?

To have foud a position of equillibrium in context of such a chaoctic entropically simple universe, to know, that such a place would allow information to have been squeezed through, and with it, all the potential information loss that was once confined, now set under geoemtrically propensities to become what it may be surmized as, "evolved," under certain conditions? Underthe aupsice, that it could exist, within cntext of the developing universe?

Immediately what came to mind is the reductionist views we have about the beginnings of the universe. The picture above, came to mind. And from it, all the ideas that I had been reading about when I had engaged the topic of the universe in question.

THis is a interesting question and if you read what anyone might of surmized, how different would this simplification of the question be, if it is holding all the answers to what really happened at the start of that universe?

Keeping sharp on the nature of speculations.:)Well of course "timing is everything" and if one ask a question in one part of the uiverse how could it ever been related to what Lubos writes in his? Well I have to speak to that:)

So right away seeing this is a good question to ask, and based on what one had been learning as they engaged science, how consistant would this story be with what is actually been taking place in science? One guess is as good as another? Or are there simplified versions that we could pass onto our children so that they understood the fullscope of this story of creation.

Now you must remember, as a student and a older one at that, there will always be mistakes. Being granted this reprieve for a time(writing our fiction?), while we look at the question asked, what do I think? Hmmmm.... interesting question.

So at the very top of this page there was a problem right away about such containment, and if I was to ask where and how would such conditions emerge for such a thing as the beginning of the universe to be known, why could I not explain it in my immediate environ, where cosmic particle collsions mimic what we are doing in our colliders?

Is this not simple enough to ask, that such a question could bring perspective not ony from the very beginning of our universe, but to have corralled it to what is happening now. These two things are very important to bring together so that we understand that creation exists in our terminologies, as if every moment has the potential to be created as it was in the very beginning of that universe.

Isn't this stance important to comprehend as I begin my story?

As I have been talking about, for so long, I wonder where it would end, that I soon learnt in mind that such a processes had to be cyclical in nature, yet, how could energy start off in place and go through all the phases to have become contained in the "possibility again" to continue this process.

So here this is another insight into the nature of my story.

One would have to have surmized the very beginning, and some might called is the sea from which all things arise and it is mythical in nature, that all life arose from this sea of possibilty?

Of course in my own artistic rendition, the shakespearean heart arose from my lips touched to ask. "To be or not to be," is not the question.

Of course I would have to give credit to Paul(not in the bible) for his early interpretation of the design shown above so as to wonder about such a procreative design to have said, "this is indeed the measure of our reality while we look back to it's beginning?"

So you needed this measure of "certainty" to ask how is it that such a beginning could have ever emerge from the "values of light" that it could contain information about our beginnings? I know it seems I may be getting too technical for the average Joe?

So it indeed becomes really difficult to contain the very expansive nature of the universe in such a boundary condition, does it not? So you look for the basis of reality in a way that allows such travel or "tunnelling" to help push the idea I have about my story of creation. It is parts and pieces of the that exemplify our ideas about the origins of nature, to wonder, if that energy began? Where did it?

It is very impotrant to set up the "nature of reality" as it began, yet, it is not so simple then to ask that if zeropoint had this basis of reality as well, what existed in this false vacuum, to have it exemplified the resulting information which travelled "through to the universe" as we now know it?

You had to wonder, and know that such phase changes began in the very beginning,and as the universe unfolded, to have given "all that is" a place in this timeline of expression, to have made it, to what is in the nature of the cosmo?

It did not mean that we could not find our moments and secondary showers from such a beginning, not to have traced it back and know, that this beginning point was really never so far away? They do it in the colliders. They have t account for this energy, and some of it is missing.

So containement was a problem, and with it we began to use these analogies for describing "backreaction." Oh, we have some mode of time travel here? Or, that we may have some idea about what is geometriclaly enhanced in our talks, to have actually followed the physics process?

Yes, I did that too.

I referenced tunnelling for very specific reasons, but alas, I too have to ask then that if such dissipated forces are the continued unravelling of that fluid state, then how would such information be released in the secondary shower effect?

The nature of our universe in continued expression?

That means that it left something somewhere for the false vacuum to have initiated the transferance of the original information, back, into the design of the cosmos?

I like analogies for that reason, and if some want to write fiction, while they hold other minds to the constraints applied in our reasoning of that science, then you should be prepared to suffer the consequence of what any mind like that of a Kaku, or Greene, in those extra story telling versions?

You will be targetted for all the insane things you might hence forward say. It's just somethng I noticed when I tried to go deeper into the world that science brings us.:)Scientists can indeed be unkind to each other?

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

While it does appear that Einstein has indeed given us a paradigm which was indeed world-changing and affected everyone, how well might he have known himself?

He was "driven," as to the" focus and outcome" of GR's growth? Yet, being Jewish, and the meaning he might have had for God(Old ONe) had a perspective about nature, that was embued with a certain terminology?

So having engaged the wording of scientist as of late, I wanted to stay as close as I could to the thinking being developed as they engaged society through their blogging site perspectives.

It was most troubling that any discussing of the timeline and any other constructs place in accordance with that timeline, would/could have been insulting to some, even though it fit into a perspective in terms of microseconds, lesss then somany eseconds of expression.

Again for sure, "thought constructs," most appropriate measures as yard sticks of reality conforming to model approaches? Be open.

You must understand there is a current struggle in today's world with those who support the Templeton Foundation, it's scientists, and those who believe science should remain free of such influences, so they propagate any information forthcoming as tainted?

The Nature of RealityHaving read all of Jane Roberts books( some might not have taken a shine to such information, but part of the developing perspective included information that was written "intuitively compelled"), so she might have answered a little different, but in essence, thought, to the nature of the universe.

I'll try and find her definition of the building blocks.

So you are give this question as to what the nature of the unverse is? What is it, and people are lead through theoretcial constructs to develope perspective on what that question might be?

Robert Laughlin, does not care if they are Lego bricks or Drunk Sargeant majors:)

One had to indeed understand that the maps drawn, were drawn from thOught constructS engaged from wanting to understanding where first principles may have emerged from?

How would you do that without undertanding where this map began?

So what use to Engage Strangelets, New Physics

So from a resulting comprehension of such first principles, there came this resulting course of events, that went through all the phase transitions, to become what it is, in context of the strangelet, a perspective about a measure in the IceCap?

I have been following this research for sometime now. I will be updating this information here].

One has to know where to begin with all this information, and that such "mental constructs" had to know where this beginning was. While there are few here mathematically endowed, I wanted to come here and share perspectve in context of the neurological idea behind the mental constructs that we develope in science.

This is not without foundation that, "globally," when we now see, we had indeed step back to access the greater potential in "thought generation," and that "mass psychosis," (could we call it that as such a verification by the masses?)" endowed to measure, experimentally verified.

I'll wait to see if you want some time to digest and rethink, if you think, it worth doing that? :)

No matter the ideology spread, is there something today that is quite useful in our approaches to cognizing relevance, from "thought constructs" to actual processes, currently asking us our about the beginning of the universe?

While such solidification ensues from taking a stand, as a concluson drawn, is it compelling as to the nature of what first principles might mean? You had to understand the current environment, to conclude an opinion about the measures and constructs, as to those measures asking if there was another way?

You couldn't know that, unless you might have read the links of Robert Lauglhin and understood reductionistic tendencies(science), as to the nature of our universe? It's like joining quantum perspective with General Relativity? You would have to known how this was acomplished? It's result, and hence it's application within society?

If one had not understood, shall we call it a "probabilistic discourse," to have now understood, that a new course may be set today, was different from the past, by "one additional grasp of self evident first principle?" That a new page may be written( what thinking had done so) which may change the course of our lives?

Of course, some will not have confidence yet. :)That the potential exists within each of us to understand we are partaking of a quest to percieve where this point in existance might be revealled. If not at the basis of reality, then what use the math? While I generalize becuase of my inefficieny of these interpretations, the vastness of the world of math, there was some undertanding geometrically inclined, that is revealled as we followed the logic leading to GR.

Did it mean we should be devoid of our belief in a God, if we held to science principles, while, we engaged in the subjectivity of our opinions?

It is difficult to explain how one might have "the feeling" for curvature on cosmological plateau while such tendencies for quantum perception would be rule by uncertainty?

I wonder if such states held in context to what consciousness might be able to percieve at that level of high energy areas, would give indications to particle natures and the curvatures assigned to each particle nature. What gave these meomntum ad emotive feelings to such travel from the initial contact?

How are we able to pierce this veil and environment, while talking about the nature of such curvatures? We wouldn't survive realistically, yet, we are able to perform "thought constructs" to such models?

So looking at time dilation, the photon within environments, what indications for such curvatures, and one gets this sense of momentum, and in another way, something that I have called toposense.

This map defines the whole standard model and the phase transitions. We are talking about a "certain time" in the planck epoch. So what is happening "in" the Planck epoch?

If such energies had recognized the current state of the superfluid created, then anomalies in "this scenario" would have allowed such "geometrical presence to be channelled" as part of the cyclical features contained in the expression of the universe?

So you take this universe and apply the backhole on a cosmlogical scale eqaul to it's inflation, as a distance in the blackhole's radius? Such a crunch would have recognized the boundary conditions as a the furthest point this universe could have grown, from the original blackhole that created this universe?

So what evidence is left? That the universe and it's "dark matter" as the false vacuum is creating the scenarios for the universe to have found it's temeperature today, started from some "other condition" seen in the planck epoch? Okay how did you get there?

The bubble conditions would then have to existed in the superfluids? How would have geoemtrically arrived at such a "topology expressed" in this one universe?

The topological genus figure of the sphere, to a torus and it's rotation seen in characteristic, housed the equallibrium state arrived at, as to the channelling of that extra energy and the resulting "new physics" in the strange quarks created?

So what is "that cylinder" created as the jet is expressed, in the gravitational collapse

Thus, this cycle is completed in the bulk perspective? Would have created the situation again in strong concentrations? Why cosmologically the conditons are "many" and such evidence pointing to ICECUBE, as to the conditons beyond the standard model, leads to questions about "cerenkov radiation?"

Is there no backreaction created, if we were to lets say look at the Laval nozzles, and understand that what is expressed in the standard model energy once ejected in the jet, would have had counter proposals manifest in the geomerical presence held to a whole universe. The Anti-matter? Non Qui

Monday, February 27, 2006

Here, each arrow represents a symmetry breaking phase transition where matter changes form and the groups - G, H, SU(3), etc. - represent the different types of matter, specifically the symmetries that the matter exhibits and they are associated with the different fundamental forces of nature

With a distance measure in mind, the idea of a tree is to identify where something began, and ended? So you say that this interactive phase began and ended how?

So if one wants to keep it simplifed one would have had to identified the earlier known time, where conditions were permitted, which arose to entropic valuation, from that singular time? So lets call this beginning, "Plancktime"?

How things change, by simple rotations? It is always good to have "an image" in mind as you look at this topic presented with the perspective on puppies, instead of whether cats are alive or dead.

While I had started out from a macroperspective, the idea is to put forward how we see around us right now? While I had isolated "the event" and "phase rotations" to a macroscopic valuation, the idea is to understand that this process holds true to the one at the quantum level as well. How so?

The complexity, arises from the resulting evidence we have about objects in space, yet, there is a real understanding about "how things came to be" at this time in the cosmo, and the relating value seen in the temperature now. Yet it is possible to create, the time back when the singuarity was not in the way we though it to be as some pea, but as a condition we might have applied to "zero being a superfluid state. Where are these conditions relevant?

Particle Indentification

So before I move on I wanted to relay some understanding about the intrinistic valuation of fundamental particles, and thought it better to draw attention to them while coming back to the issues of entanglement, as they arose from that simplier time.

Spooky action at a distance again?

Sure you have to start somewhere, and we know given "state of existance" is held in consideration? So you simplify, and entanglement seems relevant as Dick mentions to make something more complex. I would of quickly jumped to "spintronic idealizations" in his case, as well as understanding, we were moving towards complexity, in computer systemization.

While we had been playing with these ideas many have speculate over time to make this spooky action idelized earlier on by einstein, to a more solid foundational transferance in communication. GHZ entanglement became much more complex over time as experimental testing moved it forward.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

One definitely needs some perspective around this and how such information is given. I refer here for consideration, about perspective, and how it can be exploited for further consideration on what is emitted, and what manifests in weak gravitational field measure, as neutrino effects(quantum gravity).

Microperspective and methods of examination, raise the issue fo cerenkov radiation and what it tells us about such interactive phases?

Here in refractive consideration, ICECUBE, paints a different picture of what began somewhere else in cosmological high energy collisions. "Neutrinos and strangelets" are part of the developing scenario with which the universe has consequences, if held to the initial conditons of our universe. You had to know where to look for these.

I wanted to add these links here for consideration, as well what link given by Paul for consideration in regards to Penrose, the figure of the man's change of heart that ighlight's this post. In Phase transitions the comments have been quite enlightening.

Sunday, February 05, 2006

While I am reading the discussion on cosmicvariance posted by Sean, Why 10 or 11?,I am struggling to see in ways that a lot of us are not accustom too. So for every way that is being presented for the layman, the struggle is to undertsand the relatinship to dimensional perspectve as shared by those who are speaking and clarifying.

What is held in the mind of one who would encompass all this from a event like the Gold Ion collision process, setting the stage for a comprehensive view, being talked about there?

I struggle.

While reading this, this is ole news, but if you hold it in context of what is being talked about in the abstract terms about "what began in the beginning," such associations are important for me as I delve into what is making sense and what isn't.

Earlier such a schematic revealled to us in earlier cosmolgical thinking/linking from the time from the big bang, would be ripe for associative analogies, to help push perspective? Well, it does for me. Of course, I am going beyond Steven Weinberg's first three minutes.

Friday, December 30, 2005

So what instigated my topic today and Hypercharge make sits way for me to reconsider, so while doing this the idea of geoemtries and th eway in which we see this uiverse held to the nature of it's origination are moving me to consider how we see in ths geometrical sense.

This paragraph above should orientate perception for us a bit around methods used to see in ways that we had not seen before. This is always very fascinating to me. What you see below for mind bending, helps one to orientate these same views on a surface.

Hw would you translate point on a two dimensional surface to such features on the items of interest on these models proposed?

Part of my efforts at comprehension require imaging that will help push perspective. In this way, better insight to such claims and model methods used, to create insight into how we might see those extra 10 dimensions, fold into the four we know and love.

If one held such views from the expansitory revelation, that our universe implies at these subtle levels a quantum nature, then how well has our eyes focused not only on the larger issues cosmology plays, but also, on how little things become part and parcel of this wider view? That the quantum natures are very spread, out as ths expansion takes place, they collpase to comsic string models or a sinstantaneous lightning strikes across thei universe from bubbles states that arose from what?

So knowing that such features of "spherical relation" extended beyond the normal coordinates, and seeing this whole issue contained within a larger sphere of influence(our universe), gives meaning to the dynamical nature of what was once of value, as it arose from a supersymmetrical valuation from the origination of this universe? If Any symmetry breaking unfolds, how shall we see in context of spheres and rotations within this larger sphere, when we see how the dynamcial propertties of bubbles become one of the universes as it is today? Genus figures that arise in a geometrodynamcial sense? What are these dynacis within context of the sphere?

So as I demonstrate the ways in which our vision is being prep for thinking, in relation to the models held in contrast to the nature of our universe, how are we seeing, if we are moving them to compact states of existance, all the while we are speaking to the very valuation of the origination of this same universe?

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Who is to deny that such processes incorporated into our views of today would not have drawn the cosmologist and the deeper intracies of physics, to point to our nature and it's beginnings in our universe . To raise questions about how such families were to arise from that place and time, specified and leading from one science inclination to another?

This all fell under the arrow of time, yet would it not recognize, that such exchanges between the cycles of energy and matter to take place in that process? That such exchanges would define the natures of galaxies in there beginnings and ends, as a geometrical consistancies born out of the beginnings of this universe? How so? Could such links be made to indicate, that this universe so unique, as to arise from the first inceptions as phase transitions? Some first principle?

Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century (2003)Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA)

Monday, October 10, 2005

Of course "phase transitions" and "asymmetrical realizations" had to arise from developmental processes in the universe? One had to know, in what sphere such developemental would take place, and if we circumvented all these chinese boxes or Russina dolls to exemplifed allegorical comments about consciousness. It had to follow a Gr perspective, and, a quantum mechanical one? "Topo-sense" as to developing topolgical models within consciousness, as a well as, models in the developing universe as a GR sense? IMagine to then such toposense further develped from theidealizatin of quantum views such physicla actions taken from cosmological proportions and reduced to probability functions entailed in our mental structure, then indeed we had transgressed our limitation to a feeling?:)

Imagine for a moment about that such a "momentus occasion", as well we learn to see the developmental process of circles(orbits) and Mercuries orbital patterns (a daisey) and got this general sense of reduced orbital pattern decay of rotatng binary pulsar systems as revealled by Taylor and Hulse.

We got to know "information release" from the distances involved, and could calculated when they would combined? This is a "prediction then" based on, a viable measure, not only in terms of that distance valuation, but of how we might arrive at it other then in astronmical viewing. What would be revealled in LIGO application?

Assymetrical views would have revealled mandalic interpretations very distinctive of conscious awareness, and unfoldment in design. This had to have a geometric and foundational perspective that arose from the expansitory valution of brane world idealizations? As well as, the deeper recesses of our own minds?

One had to be able to recognize this "model apprehension" and speak to it directly in experience. I could do that because of my explorations. Am I adapting to new methods of model developements? For sure. :)

"Luminousity" as enlightenment could possibly help push back the veil, if we could probably do this?

Test of the Quantenteleportation over long distances in the duct system of Vienna Working group Quantity of experiment and the Foundations OF Physics Professor Anton Zeilinger

Quantum physics questions the classical physical conception of the world and also the everyday life understanding, which is based on our experiences, in principle. In addition, the experimental results lead to new future technologies, which a revolutionizing of communication and computer technologies, how we know them, promise.

In order to exhaust this technical innovation potential, the project "Quantenteleportation was brought over long distances" in a co-operation between WKA and the working group by Professor Anton Zeilinger into being. In this experiment photons in the duct system "are teleportiert" of Vienna, i.e. transferred, the characteristics of a photon to another, removed far. First results are to be expected in the late summer 2002.

One of the first indications to me came as I looked at the history in regards to Klein's Ordering of Geometries. Now I must admit as a layman I am very green at this understanding but having jumped ahead in terms of the physics involved, its seems things have been formulating in my head, all the while, this underatnding in terms of this "order" has been lacking.

So spelt out here is one way in which this progression becomes embedded within this hisotry of geometry, while advancing in relation to this association I was somewhat lifted to question about Spooky action at a distance. WEll if such projective phase was ever considered then how would distance be irrelevant(this sets up the idea then of probabilistic pathways and Yong's expeirment)? There had to be some mechanism already there tht had not been considered? Well indeed GHZ entanglement issues are really alive now and such communication networks already in the making. this connection raised somewhat of a issue with me until I saw the the phrase of Penrose, about a "New Quantum View"? Okay we know these things work very well why would we need such a statement, so I had better give the frame that help orientate my perspective and lead to the undertanding of spin.

Now anywhere along the line anyone can stop such erudication, so that these ideas that I am espousing do not mislead. It's basis is a geometry and why this is important is the "hidden part of dirac's mathematics" that visionization was excelled too. It is strange that he would not reveal these things, all the while building our understanding of the quantum mechanical nature of reality. Along side of and leading indications of GR, why would not similar methods be invoked as they were by Einstein? A reistance to methodology and insightfulness to hold to a way of doing things that challenegd Dirac and cuased sleepless nights?

Have a look at previous panel to this one.

While indeed this blog entry open with advancements in the Test in Vienna, one had to understadn this developing view from inception and by looking at Penrose this sparked quite a advancement in where we are headed and how we are looking at current days issues. Smolin and others hod to the understnding f valuation thta is expeirmentally driven and it is not to far off to se ehosuch measure sare asked fro in how we ascertain early universe, happening with Glast determinations.

Quantum Cryptography

Again if I fast forward here, to idealization in regards to quantum computational ideas, what value could have been assigned to photon A and B, that if such entanglement states recognize the position of one, that it would immediately adjust in B?

So there is this "distance measure" here that has raised a quandry in my mind about how such a projective geometry could have superceded the idea of "spooky things" and the issues Einstein held too.

So without understanding completely I made a quantum leap into the idealization in regards to "logic gates" as issues relevant to John Venn and introduced the idea around a "relative issues" held in my mind to psychological methods initiated by such entanglement states.

As far a one sees here this issue has burnt a hole in what could have transpired within any of us that what is held in mind, ideas about geomtires floated willy Nilly about. How would such "interactive states" have been revealled in outer coverings.

The Perfect Fluid

Again I am fstforwding here to help portray question insights that had been most troubling to me. If suych supersymmetrical idealizations arose as to the source and beginning of existance how shall such views implement this beginning point?

So it was not to unlikely, that my mind engaged further problems with such a view that symmetry breaking wouldhad tohave signalled divergence from sucha state of fluid that my mind encapsulated and developed the bubble views and further idealizations, about how such things arose from Mother.

What would signal such a thing as "phase transitions" that once gauged to the early universe, and the Planck epoch, would have revealled the developing perspective alongside of photon developement(degrees of freedom) and released information about these early cosmological events.

So I have advance quite proportinately from the title of this Blog entry, and had not even engaged the topological variations that such a leading idea could have advanced in our theoretcical views of Gluonic perceptions using such photonic ideas about what the tragectories might have revealled.

So indeed, I have to be careful here that all the while my concepts are developing and advanced in such leaps, the roads leading to the understanding of the measure here, was true to form and revalled issues about things unseen to our eyes.

It held visionistic qualities to geometric phases that those who had not ventured in to such entanglement states would have never made sense of a "measure in the making." It has it's limitation, though and why such departures need to be considered were also part of my question about what had to come next.